Friday, March 23, 2012

Name calling, Amy Tan and the truth about women

[Image of Amy Tan from Wikipedia]

The famous writer, Amy Tan, pissed off as hell, resorted to calling the current crop of GOP candidates unsavory names, such as Rigid Sanctimonious, Nude Gingrich and Mutt Raunchy.

This display of ire had the effect of pissing off certain right-wing bloggers who thought Ms. Tan had gone off the deep end.  I mean, really, her names didn't make sense.  Romney isn't "raunchy"!  Is he?  And Gingrich isn't "nude"!  Is he?  Ms. Tan was just plain rude.

Actually, Ms. Tan, in my opinion, was fully justified in calling the moronic GOP candidates names.  In fact, I think she has exercised great restraint.  I would have called them much worse.  In fact, I have called them much worse.  They deserve to be called much worse!

Ms. Tan has defended her verbal assaults on her Facebook page.  This is what she said, in part:

"To those who criticize my perversion of the GOP candidates' names, please know that name-calling is not my usual standard of response.  Nor do I normally use expletives.  But I make exceptions.  Never in my lifetime have I seen such a line-up of candidates who want to pervert the lives of women, who want to f**k them over every which way they can think of.  These perverts are men, and variously they are telling us that single women should not have sex, should not use contraceptives, should consider a baby conceived from a rape to be a blessing, and to leave all matters concerning the uterus to them."

Ms. Tan then notes that the GOP candidates, like all of the Republican right "vote down the line on personal moral beliefs," but are out of touch with the real world.  She mentions she's the daughter of a Baptist minister and knows "how intractable religious beliefs are supposed to be, how by faith, you must carry those beliefs into the world, into all walks of life, without compromise, without listening to any other opinions."

But that doesn't mean it's right nor justified.  Obviously, religious beliefs are often the cause of evil, the source of nastiness and not a means of grace!  And that's why Ms. Tan concludes her diatribe thusly:

"To these GOP candidates who want to rule government by the divine guidance of their cocks, study the pages of history on the Inquisition and the Holocaust, and keep your hands off me, my nieces, my sisters, my women friends, their daughters and their daughters to come."

The Republican Party, which is, by and large, led and fed by fundamentalist christianists of both Protestant and Catholic stripes, has turned into a quasi-fascist ultra right party that would strip human rights out of the Constitution in favor of biblical mandates posited by ignorant desert-dwellers thousands of years ago.

The Republican Party, parroting the biblical notions of patriarchy, strives to put women in their "place," which invariably means "barefoot, pregnant and home."

The Republican Party thinks it can win an election in 2012 without the women's vote.

But there are cracks in the party's facade.  Richard Hanna, a Republican congressman from New York, fed up with the kooks now leading his party, had some words of advice for women.  These are "precarious times" for women, said Congressman Hanna.  Women need to look out for themselves, protect themselves.  In fact, said the congressman, women should give their money, not to the Republican Party or the GOP candidates, but to those who would best look after their interests, to those who speak for women, i.e. the Democrats.

That may not be much, but Mr. Hanna does provide a ray of light, a slender reed of hope.  Maybe our slide down the slippery slope of Republican depravity can be derailed?


Carole said...

interesting post. You might like this quote on truth.

Anonymous said...

I'm a secular humanist, but I have a lot of respect for Christianity.

Bob Poris said...

RE the posting on the blog by Amy Tan and her quotes re the Republican candidates and their Party:

Mrs. Tan was correct as far as she went. She suggests that she had much more to say and I would probably agree with her. Even those she labeled sometimes have different opinions on different subjects. The infamous Koch brothers, aside from their dictatorial desire to buy elections, politicians and parties of differing goals and ideals, are very charitable and donate many millions to many charities and causes I strongly agree with. When I condemn them I am condemning their use of money to pervert our democratic system, to favor their interests or unhealthy biases.

It was well known that Hitler liked dogs and treated them well. He wasn’t all bad or evil. His relationship with his long-term mistress ended in marriage and he treated her well, we are told.

I still have problem after reaching the age of 88, with defining myself or my thoughts with a single label or sentence. I make decisions and form opinions based on my life experiences, events, comments, news items, pronouncements made by people that I read, hear, see, or meet. They vary from agreement to disagreement in part or totally. My opinions are usually based on the sum total of my life experiences, education, reading, discussions, biases, prejudices plus the utterances, writings, speeches, etc., of those I have been in contact with in some manner over time. Some people are also beyond a simple label that is intended to cover the sum of their life, comments, etc. Most people are too complex to be labeled accurately by even the smartest or best informed amongst us, Only fools think in such a one- dimension manner. I do not think I am a fool, but that is only my opinion, of course.

Christianity is an ill-defined term and covers far more than a single religion or belief. Some Christians are evil and some are almost saints. Most fall in between and some are beyond polite words. The same can be said about all people that use a religious term as if they met all criteria ascribed to that label. I am glad I do not use any.

opinions powered by